M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).------The appellant, Mohammad Sarfraz, was Forestor in the Forest Department, when he was dismissed from service vide order dated 26 5-1975 issued by the Divisional Forest Officer Rahimyar Khan. An appeal to the Conservator of Forests, Bahawalpur was rejected on 26-8-1975, while a revision petition made to the Government was turned down on 9-8- 1978.
2. The facts of the case are that one Khuda Bakhsh put in a written complaint to the D. F. O.
Rahimyar Khan that on 22-12-1973 he noticed certain Government trees being cut along the 3-R Abbasia Canal. He had brought the matter to the notice of the Range Officer concerned who told him that this was being done to facilitate a road for the benefit of the farmers. The next day he found the felled trees being carried away and on again approaching the Range Officer he was informed by the latter that this was a private matter in which the complainant need not interfere.
The complainant suspected that the trees were not felled for an official purpose and stated that the Forest Guard, Faiz Mohammad, had the names and addresses of the persons to whom the trees were sold.
3. The D. F. O. Ordered a preliminary investigation by the S. D. F. O., Noor Afshan Sub-Division, who reported that 49 trees had been disposed of through an illicit auction by the appellant and by Faiz Mohammad, Forest Guard and that they should be proceeded against. The D. F. O. Suspended both the officials. The appellant was charge-sheeted on 7-2-1974 for inefficiency (failing to protect Government property), and for misconduct (illicitly disposing of Government property). The D. F. O., Bahawalpur, who was appointed Enquiry Officer, found the Range Officer, Ghulam Nabi, and the two suspected officials equally guilty. Later, however, the appellant was served with another charge-sheet on 4-9-1974 in which the charge was amended as "connivance at and participation in an unauthorised and unlawful auction of the 49 trees". It was charged that the appellant failed to mention the damage to the forest property in his weekly diary because he was a party to their illegal disposal. This time the D. F. O., Bahawalpur, was appointed Enquiry Officer, who held all three officials guilty. After issue of a show-cause notice on 16-4-1975, the appellant was dismissed from service.
4. The record of the case was called for. The appellant was heard. It was stated on his behalf that he had merely participated in the auction which was said to have been held by the Range Officer, Ghulam Nabi, who had received payments from the purchasers without giving any official receipt.
It was submitted that as a minor subordinate the appellant had no means of knowing that the auction was unauthorised. The learned ,counsel for the appellant contended that once a charge- sheet was issued it could not be changed. In the second charge-sheet the charge was participation in an unauthorised auction whereas in the first enquiry the Enquiry officer had held that actually no action was conducted and the trees were disposed of by the appellant and the Forest Guard, Faiz Mohammad. The Range Officer, Ghulam Nabi, who was actually responsible for the disposal of the trees and had collected the money had been let off later with a punishment amounting only to stoppage of one increment. Case-law was cited to support the contention that the entire burden in a nadministrative misdemeanour could not be thrown on the subordinates.
5. The learned Government pleader referred to the appellant's failure to report the damage in his weekly diary which failure had been admitted by the appellant. This had been done in order to cover the illegal disposal of the felled trees, otherwise there was no occasion for not mentioning the damage in the weekly diary, particularly when the appellant claimed to have noticed the damage.
It was also contended on behalf of the department that due requirements of the rules had been observed while taking action against the appellant.
6. In our opinion the crucial point is not whether the auction-albeit illegal-was held or not; the main issue to be decided is whether the appellant was in any way connected with the illicit disposal of the felled trees. We have gone through the record of the case. There is evidence on record that some trees were sold in a so-called auction and payment received by the appellant and the Forest Guard. In a statement dated 1-]-1974 addressed to the D. F. O., Rahimyar Khan, the appellant has admitted that the trees were illicitly sold, claiming at the same time that he was inveigled by Ghulam Nabi into joining the sale on the plea that the money was required by "higher officers".
There is also the appellant's statement on record that an auction was held but he did not know that it was unauthorised. It is difficult for us to be leave that an experienced forest official would not know from the proceedings whether an auction was proper or feigned.
7. In view of the above, we feel that the charge against the appellant is proved. As for amending the charge-sheet, there is nothing in the rules to prevent the department from withdrawing one charge-sheet and issuing another. In any case, the appellant hardly gets any benefit from assailing this procedure, because he was found guilty by both the Enquiry Officers.
8. We do not have before us the facts which led to the stoppage of an increment by the Department in the case of Ghulam Nabi, Forest Guard. We do observe from the record, however, that the appellant was not the sole villain in the case of the felling and disposal of the 49 trees. He has issued varying statements during the two enquiries and it seems that someone higher than him was involved in the scheme to make illicit money out of the felled trees and it was because of this involvement that he suffered the main brunt of the punishment. In the light of this observation we find the penalty of dismissal excessive and reduce it to compulsory retirement. The appeal bears fruit to that extent. There will be no order as to costs.
Penalty reduced.